wtf is this shit spam?
MicrOfirM wrote: > > > > Hay, Hell?, Szervusz(tok)! > > > > I'm publikacio HERBALIFE -< ID:F7003203 > assistance > > pack HUF 30200,-Ft, - cirka ~ 160 *$ * > > http://www.myvideotalk.net/ > > Thank Yu very much! *__* > > //:Add tov?bb & barataid h?l?sak lesznek ?rte!:// > > > > > > > -- Eredeti ?zenet -- > *Felad?: *devl-request at freenetproject.org > <mailto:devl-request at freenetproject.org> > *C?mzett: *devl at freenetproject.org > <mailto:devl at freenetproject.org> > *M?solat: * > *Elk?ldve: *2006.08.18 14:00 > *T?ma: *Devl Digest, Vol 11, Issue 33 > > > Send Devl mailing list submissions to > devl at freenetproject.org <mailto:devl at freenetproject.org> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > devl-request at freenetproject.org > <mailto:devl-request at freenetproject.org> > > You can reach the person managing the list at > devl-owner at freenetproject.org > <mailto:devl-owner at freenetproject.org> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific > than "Re: Contents of Devl digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: "Insert Files" - why? (David 'Bombe' Roden) > 2. Re: Darknet and opennet: semi-separate networks? > (Matthew Toseland) > 3. Re: Darknet and opennet: semi-separate networks? > (Matthew Toseland) > 4. Re: "Insert Files" - why? (Matthew Toseland) > 5. Re: Darknet and opennet: semi-separate networks? (Ian Clarke) > 6. Re: "Insert Files" - why? (Jano) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:35:21 +0200 > From: David 'Bombe' Roden <droden at gmail.com> > <mailto:droden at gmail.com%3E> > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] "Insert Files" - why? > To: devl at freenetproject.org <mailto:devl at freenetproject.org> > Message-ID: <200608172235.22001.droden at gmail.com> > <mailto:200608172235.22001.droden at gmail.com%3E> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" > > On Thursday 17 August 2006 22:06, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > Hmm, that is kind of a specialist need, does it really have > to have > > such prominence on the FProxy page? Could it be a plugin > instead? > > As nextgens suggested I'll remove the link from the navigation > bar and > include a link on the queue page. > > > > I think $HOME might be better. > > Okay. > > > > Ian. > > David > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 191 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/7c3958b7/attachment.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:10:09 +0100 > From: Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> > <mailto:toad at amphibian.dyndns.org%3E> > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet and opennet: semi-separate > networks? > To: Discussion of development issues <devl at freenetproject.org> > <mailto:devl at freenetproject.org%3E> > Message-ID: <20060817211009.GA19497 at amphibian.dyndns.org> > <mailto:20060817211009.GA19497 at amphibian.dyndns.org%3E> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:16:26AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > On 17 Aug 2006, at 09:58, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > >On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:37:02AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > >>I don't believe that the darknet and opennet will be > weakly connected > > >>as you suggest, but neither of us can no for sure until we > see it. > > > > > >We can know for near certain that darknets operating in hostile > > >environments will be weakly connected to the opennet, and > probably to > > >other darknets too, for the simple reason that they CANNOT use > > >opennet. > > > > No, but they can be connected to peers outside the hostile > > environment that can be promiscuous. > > Sure, but the hope is that there will be several very large > (thousands > of nodes) chinese/iranian/etc darknets, which would have to have > relatively few "uplink" nodes, not just hundreds of ten node ones. > > > > Ian. > -- > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > <mailto:toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 189 bytes > Desc: Digital signature > Url : > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/e31164bc/attachment.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:15:20 +0100 > From: Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> > <mailto:toad at amphibian.dyndns.org%3E> > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet and opennet: semi-separate > networks? > To: Discussion of development issues <devl at freenetproject.org> > <mailto:devl at freenetproject.org%3E> > Message-ID: <20060817211520.GB19497 at amphibian.dyndns.org> > <mailto:20060817211520.GB19497 at amphibian.dyndns.org%3E> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:16:34PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > > On 17 Aug 2006, at 10:42, Evan Daniel wrote: > > >On 8/17/06, Ian Clarke <ian at revver.com> > <mailto:ian at revver.com%3E> wrote: > > >>On 17 Aug 2006, at 09:58, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > >> > > >>On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:37:02AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > >> > > >>I don't believe that the darknet and opennet will be > weakly connected > > >>as you suggest, but neither of us can no for sure until we > see it. > > >> > > >>We can know for near certain that darknets operating in > hostile > > >>environments will be weakly connected to the opennet, and > probably to > > >>other darknets too, for the simple reason that they CANNOT > use > > >>opennet. > > >> > > >>No, but they can be connected to peers outside the hostile > > >>environment that can be promiscuous. > > > > > >Can they? If the outside peer is promiscuous, then it can be > > >harvested (with some greater amount of effort than for 0.5, > right?). > > >So can't a hostile gov't harvest external promiscuous nodes > and block > > >all traffic to / from them? Then you'd need a user behind the > > >firewall to connect to a darknet-only node outside the > firewall, which > > >would then connect to promiscuous nodes via darknet > connections. > > > > Perhaps, in which case the solution is for someone inside the > > firewall to connect to a darknet node outside the firewall, > they can > > then connect to opennet nodes. In this case the user in the > hostile > > regime is still just 2 hops from the opennet. > > There is a limited supply of friendly westerners, and there is > also a > limited intersection of content between the two networks. If > the network > is to work well for the chinese then it will have to scale > *internally*, > so that people can add their friends without rapidly slowing > down their > own access. What you suggest is analogous to me running a > proxy for a > few of my chinese friends; if they connect their friends to > that proxy, > and their friends connect their friends, pretty soon it is > intolerably > slow. You need a large network with lots of internal nodes > connected to > each other, and relatively few external connections. > > > > >That might be a problem... And it's definitely a way in > which having > > >an open-net hurts the darknet (though I do agree that we have a > > >defacto open-net right now). > > > > I think this final parenthesized point is the key, we don't > have a > > darknet right now, we have a very very flawed opennet. This > > situation will persist until we provide a decent opennet > solution. > > True, we have a flawed opennet with some darknet links. > > > > Ian. > -- > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > <mailto:toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 189 bytes > Desc: Digital signature > Url : > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/9d972b5e/attachment.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:16:39 +0100 > From: Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> > <mailto:toad at amphibian.dyndns.org%3E> > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] "Insert Files" - why? > To: Discussion of development issues <devl at freenetproject.org> > <mailto:devl at freenetproject.org%3E> > Message-ID: <20060817211639.GC19497 at amphibian.dyndns.org> > <mailto:20060817211639.GC19497 at amphibian.dyndns.org%3E> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:05:22PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > I don't really understand why we have replicated the "Browse > File" > > functionality built into all browsers in the new "Insert Files" > > section of FProxy? A case of "Not Invented Here"? > > Temporary space. If we force the browser to upload it > directly, it is > stored in many more places than if we tell the node where the > file is - > which no browser will do; they must send the filename, not the > full > path. > -- > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > <mailto:toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 189 bytes > Desc: Digital signature > Url : > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/e99de63b/attachment.pgp > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:35:24 -0700 > From: Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> <mailto:ian at locut.us%3E> > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet and opennet: semi-separate > networks? > To: Discussion of development issues <devl at freenetproject.org> > <mailto:devl at freenetproject.org%3E> > Cc: Oskar Sandberg <ossa at math.chalmers.se> > <mailto:ossa at math.chalmers.se%3E> > Message-ID: <45F4C14A-ED56-46ED-AC85-33EB3C24BD1F at locut.us> > <mailto:45F4C14A-ED56-46ED-AC85-33EB3C24BD1F at locut.us%3E> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; > format=flowed > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > (copying Oskar - I think you will want to read this) > > On 17 Aug 2006, at 14:15, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:16:34PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > >> Perhaps, in which case the solution is for someone inside the > >> firewall to connect to a darknet node outside the firewall, > they can > >> then connect to opennet nodes. In this case the user in the > hostile > >> regime is still just 2 hops from the opennet. > > > > There is a limited supply of friendly westerners, and there > is also a > > limited intersection of content between the two networks. If > the > > network > > is to work well for the chinese then it will have to scale > > *internally*, > > so that people can add their friends without rapidly slowing > down > > their > > own access. What you suggest is analogous to me running a > proxy for a > > few of my chinese friends; if they connect their friends to > that > > proxy, > > and their friends connect their friends, pretty soon it is > intolerably > > slow. You need a large network with lots of internal nodes > > connected to > > each other, and relatively few external connections. > > I agree that if we end up in a situation where we have large > parts of > the network only connected to each other through a very small > number > of links that this will be problematic as those links will > quickly be > overloaded. I'm not yet convinced that this situation will occur, > but I agree that it is a possibility. > > I think the fundamental reason for this problem is the migration > towards a more simplistic notion of node specialization in > 0.7. The > more flexible approach of 0.5 where nodes can have more than one > specialization, and varying degrees of specialization in > response to > demand, I believe, would be able to deal with this situation. > 0.7's > simpler approach may not. > > I don't think the solution is to have some different routing > behavior > depending on whether it is a darknet or an opennet node, > because this > doesn't solve the problem that the information you want is > still very > likely to be outside your isolated corner of Freenet. Perhaps if > nodes maintained two specializations, one for "local darknet" and > another for "global opennet", that could solve the problem, > but that > strikes me as being rather ugly.os > > For now I suggest that we wait and see, if we do start to see a > network topology that essentially consists of multiple small > world > networks that are poorly connected to each-other, then we may > need to > consider moving back to something closer to the 0.5 approach > to node > specialization. > > Ian. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQFE5OEcQtgxRWSmsqwRAq04AJ9eJopVTpgKg8FofnukjGIow5PzKQCdGTb1 > ePKFPPg9tWcqHhg3LYT2Ncg= > =roc7 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:52:29 +0200 > From: Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> <mailto:alejandro at > mosteo.com%3E> > Subject: [freenet-dev] Re: "Insert Files" - why? > To: devl at freenetproject.org <mailto:devl at freenetproject.org> > Message-ID: 1 at sea.gmane.org> <mailto:1 at sea.gmane.org%3E> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Ian Clarke wrote: > > > > > On 17 Aug 2006, at 12:49, David 'Bombe' Roden wrote: > > > >> On Thursday 17 August 2006 21:05, Ian Clarke wrote: > >> > >>> I don't really understand why we have replicated the > "Browse File" > >>> functionality built into all browsers in the new "Insert > Files" > >>> section of FProxy? A case of "Not Invented Here"? > >> > >> In the future I intend to run the node on a different > computer so > >> the "Insert Files" box is essentially completely useless if > the file I > >> want to insert is on the machine running the node. > > > > Hmm, that is kind of a specialist need, does it really have > to have > > such prominence on the FProxy page? Could it be a plugin > instead? > > I don't think is that specialist need. I'm doing it, for > example, and the > reason is quite clear: having a box 24/7 is not easy, so once > you have one > you want to have your node here, and use it via ssh tunneling from > everywhere (this in fact works fantastic with > frost/thaw/browsing). > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org <mailto:Devl at freenetproject.org> > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > End of Devl Digest, Vol 11, Issue 33 > ************************************ > > --------------------------Hirdet?s----------------------------- > * SZERETNE EGY KIV?L? EMAIL C?MET?!* > Ne vesz?dj?n m?s free szolg?ltat?kkal! > V?lassza a min?s?get ?s a megbizhat?s?got! > Klikk ide: http://www.vipmail.hu > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060819/d2931de2/attachment.html>
